Support NeoGAF

[Woopah]

Past history doesn't matter? So we shouldn't have any expectation that the next Zelda shouldn't at the absolute worst, sell at least 1 million in Japan given the past success in Japan? That it can perform as little as 1k or as high as 10 million because the strenght and recognition of IP now suddenly play no part in selling a game in a said franchise? What are we now, rewriting history? And if that was true, if what you said was factually true, then why did you argument earlier in the thread that SF VI performance is pkay due to it selling about as well as SF V, if you just said that past history of previous entries don't matter? You are contradicting yourself.

And SF doesn't simply have prestige in gaming forum. Even my sister, who hates gaming, knows who Chun Li is. Or that my friends who don't game knows who Ryu and Ken are. THAT was the impact Street Fighter, especially SF 2, had. So yes, prestige and being in peoples minds absolutely does matter. It makes marketing a game that much easier. SF isn't a Bayonetta level franchise in any metric, especially in its home turf. It shouldn't be, anyway. These sales are not because SF is irrelevant, these sales are because Capcom didn't release the game in the platform were 90% of ALL gamers game in.

When its that long ago, yes it doesn't matter. What SF did on the SNES doesn't mean it can sell hardware today. When I think about what to expect the next Zelda to sell week 1, I will look at the week 1 sales for TOTK and not the week 1 sales of Link to the Past.

Likewise when it comes to my expecations for SFVI, I looked at the sales for SFV, not SFII. Its so long ago that its not really relvent anymore.

Same with your ancedotes about people knowing Chun Li and Ryu. If those people didn't go and buy a PS5 the week SFVI came out, why would the name recognition be relevent to the game's abillity to move hardware?

To give other examples, Crash Bandicoot and Sonic are well known brands and I'm sure you know many people that know who they are. And there were previous games in those franchises which sold well in Japan. Does that mean we should expect a new Crash game or the new Sonic game to give a hardware boost to Switch or PS5 in Japan? Of course not.

TLDR: SF is not as impportant in Japan anymore as you think.

and I expected a bump. Be it a 2k bump, or a 12k bump, as I had written. Don't twist my words.

I'm not twisitng your words. PS5 sold 38k last week and you said "Was it really that much to expect the PS5 do 50k this week, or at least be a tiny bit higher than last week, like 40k?" Yes expecting it to get to 50k because a Street Fighter game comes out is too much.

And whether the PS5 went up 2k or down 2k is just the normal weekly fluctuations. If it did hit 40k this week, that shouldn't have been attributed to Street Fighter. Just like Switch's rise this week should not be attributed to Etrian Odyysey. Games need to be more popualr than Street Fighter to have a noticeable impact on hardware.

About the last part, I'll repeat the question I have asked you that you didn't respond to:

"And given that SF 6 is a better game by basically every metric, don't you find reasonable to believe that SF 6 sales numbers, at least the launch ones, to be dissapointing, as a higher quality product should have sold much better?And if they are going to sell broadly similar, isn't it reasonable to also assume that that is dissapointing?"

Yes I agree that the software sales pf SFVI in Japan are not that great and are below my expectaitons. But I never had any expectation that SFVI would move hardware, and neither should you.

 

[Nautilus]

When its that long ago, yes it doesn't matter. What SF did on the SNES doesn't mean it can sell hardware today. When I think about what to expect the next Zelda to sell week 1, I will look at the week 1 sales for TOTK and not the week 1 sales of Link to the Past.

Likewise when it comes to my expecations for SFVI, I looked at the sales for SFV, not SFII. Its so long ago that its not really relvent anymore.

Same with your ancedotes about people knowing Chun Li and Ryu. If those people didn't go and buy a PS5 the week SFVI came out, why would the name recognition be relevent to the game's abillity to move hardware?

To give other examples, Crash Bandicoot and Sonic are well known brands and I'm sure you know many people that know who they are. And there were previous games in those franchises which sold well in Japan. Does that mean we should expect a new Crash game or the new Sonic game to give a hardware boost to Switch or PS5 in Japan? Of course not.

TLDR: SF is not as impportant in Japan anymore as you think.



I'm not twisitng your words. PS5 sold 38k last week and you said "Was it really that much to expect the PS5 do 50k this week, or at least be a tiny bit higher than last week, like 40k?" Yes expecting it to get to 50k because a Street Fighter game comes out is too much.

And whether the PS5 went up 2k or down 2k is just the normal weekly fluctuations. If it did hit 40k this week, that shouldn't have been attributed to Street Fighter. Just like Switch's rise this week should not be attributed to Etrian Odyysey. Games need to be more popualr than Street Fighter to have a noticeable impact on hardware.



Yes I agree that the software sales pf SFVI in Japan are not that great and are below my expectaitons. But I never had any expectation that SFVI would move hardware, and neither should you.

So if you agree that SF VI sales are below expectations, why this surprise on people being dissapointed in its performance? Or rather, why not accept that people have different expectations when it comes to different games, and different opinions when it comes to what should and shouldn't move hardware? Especially when its reasonable?

We clearly dissagree on the weight that SF has. I obviously think you are 100% wrong on it: SF 2 influence will never go away, at least not that soon, making selling a game much easier. But more than that, SF 6 is just a better game overall compared to SF V. Reviews pointed that out, gamers pointed that out. So its only natural and logical to assume that launch week sales would be stronger compared to V, especially since V already had weak sales to begin with. And as with the launch of new software, especially one from a franchise with such a strong name, its only natural to expect a bump in the hardware numbers, be it 2k or 12k. No one else should have have different expectations, as that is only logical to expect as such from the nature of big new releases.

When BOTW launched, the previous 3D Zelda was Skyward Sword, which sold 4 million units and wasn't as well received. I don't remember the First Week numbers in Japan,but it should have been equally lower. Was it wrong to expect then for Zelda to sell about the same, or even lower? That a franchise with past history of doing better than that to not do better? Or Zelda is an exeption and SF is not?

Anyway, there is clearly a big factor influencing PS5 hardware sales outside of gamers not being interested in buying PS5 software. I do hope that we know soon what it is, or at least get a hint towards it.

 

[Woopah]

So if you agree that SF VI sales are below expectations, why this surprise on people being dissapointed in its performance? Or rather, why not accept that people have different expectations when it comes to different games, and different opinions when it comes to what should and shouldn't move hardware? Especially when its reasonable?

We clearly dissagree on the weight that SF has. I obviously think you are 100% wrong on it: SF 2 influence will never go away, at least not that soon, making selling a game much easier. But more than that, SF 6 is just a better game overall compared to SF V. Reviews pointed that out, gamers pointed that out. So its only natural and logical to assume that launch week sales would be stronger compared to V, especially since V already had weak sales to begin with. And as with the launch of new software, especially one from a franchise with such a strong name, its only natural to expect a bump in the hardware numbers, be it 2k or 12k. No one else should have have different expectations, as that is only logical to expect as such from the nature of big new releases.

When BOTW launched, the previous 3D Zelda was Skyward Sword, which sold 4 million units and wasn't as well received. I don't remember the First Week numbers in Japan,but it should have been equally lower. Was it wrong to expect then for Zelda to sell about the same, or even lower? That a franchise with past history of doing better than that to not do better? Or Zelda is an exeption and SF is not?

Anyway, there is clearly a big factor influencing PS5 hardware sales outside of gamers not being interested in buying PS5 software. I do hope that we know soon what it is, or at least get a hint towards it.

To clarify, expecting better software numbers is completely reasonable. It definitely could have done closer to 50k or a bit more. Expecting a hardware impact however, is not reasonable. Its not nearly a big enough game for that.

Going back to my previous examples, when ir comes to sales in Japan the influence of SF2, Crash Bandicoot 2 and Sonic 2 has indeed disappeared. Would you expect a new Sonic game or Crash game to have a hardware impact?

Zelda is not an exeption either. The sales of Zelda 2 are irrrelevant to how we should expect Zelda to sell today.

The key point I think you are missing is that SFVI is not a big release. For context, it's physical launch sales in the UK were less than half of the physical launch sales of Prime Remastered, which is also not a big release. It is not reasonable or logical to expect Metroid or Street Fighter to give a hardware boost in Japan or the UK.

 

[Nautilus]

To clarify, expecting better software numbers is completely reasonable. It definitely could have done closer to 50k or a bit more. Expecting a hardware impact however, is not reasonable. Its not nearly a big enough game for that.

Going back to my previous examples, when ir comes to sales in Japan the influence of SF2, Crash Bandicoot 2 and Sonic 2 has indeed disappeared. Would you expect a new Sonic game or Crash game to have a hardware impact?

Zelda is not an exeption either. The sales of Zelda 2 are irrrelevant to how we should expect Zelda to sell today.

The key point I think you are missing is that SFVI is not a big release. For context, it's physical launch sales in the UK were less than half of the physical launch sales of Prime Remastered, which is also not a big release. It is not reasonable or logical to expect Metroid or Street Fighter to give a hardware boost in Japan or the UK.

Yes, I would. In general, many games have the potential to at least maintain hardware sales flat week over week, and its always reasonable to expect a game's newer entry to do better than the previous one, especially if the game reviews better(Like the Zelda example I gave). You used Sonic as an example as to not expect hardware bumps out of it, but Sonic Frontiers just became the best selling Sonic in a loooong time, and it came after Sonic Forces, which was universally hated. How come, in that instance, was not ok to expect a good game to at least not give a 10% bump to the hardware it launched in? Especially being Sonic, a franchise with a long history and an estabilished name within gamers? Just because it had a rough time, doesn't mean that rough time needs to last forever. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

And SF 6 launch WAS a big release. I think what you are missing is that there is big chasm in what it is a Megaton release like TOTK and GTA 6 and something minor as an unknown indie game. SF 6 sold a million worldwide in less than a week, so it WAS a big release, its simply not a juggernaut like GTA V was. And being a big release but not a juggernaut one, its reasonable to expect a bump, but not a tidal wave out of it. But it failed to do neither in Japan, so its launch week was dissapointing in Japan. Get it?

 

[Woopah]

Yes, I would. In general, many games have the potential to at least maintain hardware sales flat week over week, and its always reasonable to expect a game's newer entry to do better than the previous one, especially if the game reviews better(Like the Zelda example I gave). You used Sonic as an example as to not expect hardware bumps out of it, but Sonic Frontiers just became the best selling Sonic in a loooong time, and it came after Sonic Forces, which was universally hated. How come, in that instance, was not ok to expect a good game to at least not give a 10% bump to the hardware it launched in? Especially being Sonic, a franchise with a long history and an estabilished name within gamers? Just because it had a rough time, doesn't mean that rough time needs to last forever. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

For a game to have a noticeable impact on hardware, it doesn't have to be GTA or Zelda levels, but it does need to have the power to convince thousands of people to buy a console. The number of games that release each year that have a noticeable impact on hardware is pretty small. There are not "many games that keep hardware flat" by launching. In the majority of cases, hardware sales fluctuate week to week regardless of what games comes out. The exceptions would be major releases that sell a lot week one. Not games like Street Fighter.

Lets look at some actual numbers. You said would would expect Crash and Sonic to give a hardware boost, so lets see what they sold when they released on each platform:

Crash 4 First Week sales

PS4 - 10,437
Switch - 2,288

Sonic Frontier First Week sales

PS4 - 9,098
Switch - 26,067

Do you see why it is neither reasonable nor logical to expect these franchises to give a noticeable hardware boost? Their sales 20 years ago didn't matter, their long history with gamers didn't matter, their better review scores than Sonic Lost Worlds and Wrath of Cortez didn't matter. They, like Street Fighter, are no longer big releases that can move hardware in Japan.

Again it is perfectly reasonable to expect better software numbers for SFVI, but the gap between what SFVI could be expected to do and what it would need to do to have a noticeable effect on hardware is huge.

And SF 6 launch WAS a big release. I think what you are missing is that there is big chasm in what it is a Megaton release like TOTK and GTA 6 and something minor as an unknown indie game. SF 6 sold a million worldwide in less than a week, so it WAS a big release, its simply not a juggernaut like GTA V was. And being a big release but not a juggernaut one, its reasonable to expect a bump, but not a tidal wave out of it. But it failed to do neither in Japan, so its launch week was dissapointing in Japan. Get it?

How much would a game have to sell week 1 in Japan for you to consider it a big release for that market that can move hardware?

There are plenty of times when a game comes out that sells over 100,000 units physically week 1, and hardware still goes down. The bar a game has to hit to move hardware is high.

Hope this is making sense, I appreciate your commitment to the discussion!

 

[Nautilus]

For a game to have a noticeable impact on hardware, it doesn't have to be GTA or Zelda levels, but it does need to have the power to convince thousands of people to buy a console. The number of games that release each year that have a noticeable impact on hardware is pretty small. There are not "many games that keep hardware flat" by launching. In the majority of cases, hardware sales fluctuate week to week regardless of what games comes out. The exceptions would be major releases that sell a lot week one. Not games like Street Fighter.

Lets look at some actual numbers. You said would would expect Crash and Sonic to give a hardware boost, so lets see what they sold when they released on each platform:

Crash 4 First Week sales

PS4 - 10,437
Switch - 2,288

Sonic Frontier First Week sales

PS4 - 9,098
Switch - 26,067

Do you see why it is neither reasonable nor logical to expect these franchises to give a noticeable hardware boost? Their sales 20 years ago didn't matter, their long history with gamers didn't matter, their better review scores than Sonic Lost Worlds and Wrath of Cortez didn't matter. They, like Street Fighter, are no longer big releases that can move hardware in Japan.

Again it is perfectly reasonable to expect better software numbers for SFVI, but the gap between what SFVI could be expected to do and what it would need to do to have a noticeable effect on hardware is huge.


How much would a game have to sell week 1 in Japan for you to consider it a big release for that market that can move hardware?

There are plenty of times when a game comes out that sells over 100,000 units physically week 1, and hardware still goes down. The bar a game has to hit to move hardware is high.

Hope this is making sense, I appreciate your commitment to the discussion!

And why Street Fighter doesn't have that capacity to convince people? Like I have said before, SF is a historic franchise that is beloved by a lot of people. SF 6 was a game that improved tremendously over SF V in every single way. It is logical in every single meaning of the world to expect the game to move consoles just a little.

What I think you are confusing is that you personally believe that SF 6 is not able to do that, because you believe that the game doesn't have that power, and not that there is an actual, factual possibility that SF 6 could have moved units with its launch. Its perfectly reasonable to not expect a franchise that hasn't had an impact on hardware in a long time to continue not having an impact, but there is a difference on personally believing on something and that same something being factually able(that could or could not happen) to move units(Based on a number of reasons, such as the franchise popularity, how known a franchise is, reviews for the newest entry, etc)

And you should read my post again, because I never mentioned Crash. Who I mentioned however, was Sonic. And Sonic Frontiers proves my point perfectly. Sonic Forces was a game that review poorly, and a franchise that was on its lowest point. In that regard, if you were to trust solely past data, the game's release shouldn't have moved any hardware, but instead it did thisWeek before vs launch week)

Week Before:

Switch : ~90k
PS5: ~13k

Launch Week:

Switch: ~97k
PS5: ~28k.

The Switch had almost a 10% increase(So a small bump), but the PS5 had a staggering ~115% increase week over week. If you go look at the chart, it isn't just Sonic that launches that day. So too Tactic Ogre(Switch and PS5) and God of War Ragnarok launches alongside it. But no release here is major.The biggest single SKU of the three is Tactics Ogre at 36k for the Switch, and that hardly is a big number, and yet the hardware numbers, especially PS5, had a big change.

Why? Because a game doesn't have to be a system seller to move units, at least in small quantities. You have this idea on your head that only real system seller(Splatoons, Marios, Zeldas, Ghost of Tsushimas) move consoles, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Each franchise, each fanbase, has a fans even if small in quantity, which would buy a console whenever and wherever their favorite franchise launches a game in.Even if its only 5k, its still 5k consoles you sell with the launch of a new Sonic, kf a new Tactics Ogre. Those are bumps. Not every real hardware increase has to be an increase in 50k units wow. That's why Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo court smaller devs like Falcom, Ippon Nichi and indies. To tap into those scattered, small but numerous fanbases.

So there really isn't a baseline on what a game should have sold in the past to be legible for that. I believe there are three factors that are far more import to determine if a game can move hardware:

1) Hype for the game: I know, its super vague. But its that sensation on how hyped people are for a game, especially for a new IP. Looking at past data alone, we wouldn't have considered Splatoon to be a viable killer app. On Wii U no less. And yet, it became one. Because of its hype.

2) Franchise history: Or in another words, how easily or not a historied franchise can pull back old fans to give another go. Being a known quantity in people minds, makes it easier for companies to market it more effectively.

3) Reviews: Its unreasonable to expect games to never again perform as well as they once did. So if a newer entry in a franchise reviews better, its only natural to assume that same newer entry to perform better, compared to the previous entry. Take Momotaru for example.It was a popular franchise, but it reached absurd new heights with the latest entry.

 

[Woopah]

And why Street Fighter doesn't have that capacity to convince people? Like I have said before, SF is a historic franchise that is beloved by a lot of people. SF 6 was a game that improved tremendously over SF V in every single way. It is logical in every single meaning of the world to expect the game to move consoles just a little.

What I think you are confusing is that you personally believe that SF 6 is not able to do that, because you believe that the game doesn't have that power, and not that there is an actual, factual possibility that SF 6 could have moved units with its launch. Its perfectly reasonable to not expect a franchise that hasn't had an impact on hardware in a long time to continue not having an impact, but there is a difference on personally believing on something and that same something being factually able(that could or could not happen) to move units(Based on a number of reasons, such as the franchise popularity, how known a franchise is, reviews for the newest entry, etc)

And you should read my post again, because I never mentioned Crash. Who I mentioned however, was Sonic. And Sonic Frontiers proves my point perfectly. Sonic Forces was a game that review poorly, and a franchise that was on its lowest point. In that regard, if you were to trust solely past data, the game's release shouldn't have moved any hardware, but instead it did thisWeek before vs launch week)

Week Before:

Switch : ~90k
PS5: ~13k

Launch Week:

Switch: ~97k
PS5: ~28k.

The Switch had almost a 10% increase(So a small bump), but the PS5 had a staggering ~115% increase week over week. If you go look at the chart, it isn't just Sonic that launches that day. So too Tactic Ogre(Switch and PS5) and God of War Ragnarok launches alongside it. But no release here is major.The biggest single SKU of the three is Tactics Ogre at 36k for the Switch, and that hardly is a big number, and yet the hardware numbers, especially PS5, had a big change.

Why? Because a game doesn't have to be a system seller to move units, at least in small quantities. You have this idea on your head that only real system seller(Splatoons, Marios, Zeldas, Ghost of Tsushimas) move consoles, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Each franchise, each fanbase, has a fans even if small in quantity, which would buy a console whenever and wherever their favorite franchise launches a game in.Even if its only 5k, its still 5k consoles you sell with the launch of a new Sonic, kf a new Tactics Ogre. Those are bumps. Not every real hardware increase has to be an increase in 50k units wow. That's why Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo court smaller devs like Falcom, Ippon Nichi and indies. To tap into those scattered, small but numerous fanbases.

So there really isn't a baseline on what a game should have sold in the past to be legible for that. I believe there are three factors that are far more import to determine if a game can move hardware:

1) Hype for the game: I know, its super vague. But its that sensation on how hyped people are for a game, especially for a new IP. Looking at past data alone, we wouldn't have considered Splatoon to be a viable killer app. On Wii U no less. And yet, it became one. Because of its hype.

2) Franchise history: Or in another words, how easily or not a historied franchise can pull back old fans to give another go. Being a known quantity in people minds, makes it easier for companies to market it more effectively.

3) Reviews: Its unreasonable to expect games to never again perform as well as they once did. So if a newer entry in a franchise reviews better, its only natural to assume that same newer entry to perform better, compared to the previous entry. Take Momotaru for example.It was a popular franchise, but it reached absurd new heights with the latest entry.

I think we've lost a bit of structure to the discussion, so hopefully you find these sub-headings useful!

Street Fighter 6's sales

I think we both agree that SFVI's positive reviews and it being cross platform means it got could have lead to higher week 1 sales. There was a chance it could have done better that SFV. But in the end it didn't and the overall software environment on PS5 probably contributed to this.

It is theoretically possible for things to blow up like Splatoon or Momotaro Dentetsu but that is incredibly incredibly rare. Its not what we expect from the vast majority of releases.

I thought SFVI could possibly reach 60k physical first week, what were you expecting?

Impact of game releases on hardware

Maybe I haven't been clear enough, but when I talk about a game not moving hardware I'm not saying that it literally led to 0 extra consoles being sold. I'm saying that its impact is so small that is cannot be discerned from the usual weekly fluctuations in hardware.

For example, its very possible that SFVI convinced 1,000 people to buy a PS5 this week, which meant it sold 35k instead of 34k. But the number is so small it can't be discerned from the usual, weekly fluctuations. Hardware goes up some weeks and down other weeks, there's no direct link with the games released. For example, lets look at the hardware sales for Switch around the same time in its third year:

Week	Switch releases hardware	Game releases (over 20k)
Week 20	Up 2,189	None
Week 21	Down 6,628	None
Week 22	Up 7,218	None
Week 23	Up 436	None
Week 24	Up 731	Doraemon: Story of Seasons - 42.230
Week 25	Down 5,263	Yo-kai Watch 4 - 150.721
Week 26	Up 30,126	Super Mario Maker 2 - 196.153 & Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball - 75.505.
Week 27	Up 16,297	None
Week 28	Down 19,658	God Eater 3 <ACT> (Bandai Namco Games) {2019.07.11} (¥6.800) - 20.960

As you can see, there is no clear pattern where new releases always give hardware a boost. The Switch went up by less when Doraemon came out that it did when no games released at all. And when Yo-kai came out, sales went down. It took something significant like the combination of SMM2 and Jikkyou to meaningfully move hardware. There are many examples where Switch games and PS4 games came out (and sold better than SFVI on PS5 or Sonic on Switch) and hardware went down.

This data tells us:

1. This idea that hardware should always stay flat or get a boost when games come out simply isn't true.
2. Switch sales can up by 7,000 without any releases. So we cannot say that Switch going up by 7,000 in a holiday month must have been because a Sonic and Tactics Ogre games came out. Likewise we shouldn't say that Switch went up in week 24 2019 because of Doraemon, or that it went up this week because of Etrian. Thae changes aren;t significant for that.

Sonic and Crash sales

This was a bit of a tangent, but now you've seen how the latest Sonic and Crash sell, would you agree that the way they sold decades ago, or the number of non-gamers who recognize the characters in them, does not impact how those games actually sell in Japan today.

Sorry for this post getting a bit long! I tried to respond to all your points.

 

[Nautilus]

I think we've lost a bit of structure to the discussion, so hopefully you find these sub-headings useful!

Street Fighter 6's sales

I think we both agree that SFVI's positive reviews and it being cross platform means it got could have lead to higher week 1 sales. There was a chance it could have done better that SFV. But in the end it didn't and the overall software environment on PS5 probably contributed to this.

It is theoretically possible for things to blow up like Splatoon or Momotaro Dentetsu but that is incredibly incredibly rare. Its not what we expect from the vast majority of releases.

I thought SFVI could possibly reach 60k physical first week, what were you expecting?

Impact of game releases on hardware

Maybe I haven't been clear enough, but when I talk about a game not moving hardware I'm not saying that it literally led to 0 extra consoles being sold. I'm saying that its impact is so small that is cannot be discerned from the usual weekly fluctuations in hardware.

For example, its very possible that SFVI convinced 1,000 people to buy a PS5 this week, which meant it sold 35k instead of 34k. But the number is so small it can't be discerned from the usual, weekly fluctuations. Hardware goes up some weeks and down other weeks, there's no direct link with the games released. For example, lets look at the hardware sales for Switch around the same time in its third year:

Week	Switch releases hardware	Game releases (over 20k)
Week 20	Up 2,189	None
Week 21	Down 6,628	None
Week 22	Up 7,218	None
Week 23	Up 436	None
Week 24	Up 731	Doraemon: Story of Seasons - 42.230
Week 25	Down 5,263	Yo-kai Watch 4 - 150.721
Week 26	Up 30,126	Super Mario Maker 2 - 196.153 & Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball - 75.505.
Week 27	Up 16,297	None
Week 28	Down 19,658	God Eater 3 <ACT> (Bandai Namco Games) {2019.07.11} (¥6.800) - 20.960

As you can see, there is no clear pattern where new releases always give hardware a boost. The Switch went up by less when Doraemon came out that it did when no games released at all. And when Yo-kai came out, sales went down. It took something significant like the combination of SMM2 and Jikkyou to meaningfully move hardware. There are many examples where Switch games and PS4 games came out (and sold better than SFVI on PS5 or Sonic on Switch) and hardware went down.

This data tells us:

1. This idea that hardware should always stay flat or get a boost when games come out simply isn't true.
2. Switch sales can up by 7,000 without any releases. So we cannot say that Switch going up by 7,000 in a holiday month must have been because a Sonic and Tactics Ogre games came out. Likewise we shouldn't say that Switch went up in week 24 2019 because of Doraemon, or that it went up this week because of Etrian. Thae changes aren;t significant for that.

Sonic and Crash sales

This was a bit of a tangent, but now you've seen how the latest Sonic and Crash sell, would you agree that the way they sold decades ago, or the number of non-gamers who recognize the characters in them, does not impact how those games actually sell in Japan today.

Sorry for this post getting a bit long! I tried to respond to all your points.

I think that, at the end of the day, its just that we have different expectations for different games. I do stand by all I have said: SF 6 should have done better, it not having moved hardware being the legendary franchise it is dissapointing, while we have data that even franchises that are long gone from their prime, like Sonic, still has enough pull to give the hardware it is released in a bump or two.

But I also get what you are saying that, even though I don't fully agree, without said bump being significant, you can't very well determine it was because of that game, and that said game shouldn't be expected bigger performances for later entries if previous entries haven't done as well to warrant as such.

I should point out that I 100% expect that SF 6 performance, alongside most PS5 games, is due to the console simply not having an active and engaged audience, and that is tied why hardware and software sales are so disconnected(And SF 6 would have performed FAR better if it was on the console japanese actually play in). But that's a discussion for the week FF XVI launches, or the week after it, as that game is clearly being positioned in Japan as the determining factor of what the hell is happening there, as FF XVI is the first big PS5 exclusive that should really appeal to the japanese.

 

[Woopah]

I think that, at the end of the day, its just that we have different expectations for different games. I do stand by all I have said: SF 6 should have done better, it not having moved hardware being the legendary franchise it is dissapointing, while we have data that even franchises that are long gone from their prime, like Sonic, still has enough pull to give the hardware it is released in a bump or two.

But I also get what you are saying that, even though I don't fully agree, without said bump being significant, you can't very well determine it was because of that game, and that said game shouldn't be expected bigger performances for later entries if previous entries haven't done as well to warrant as such.

I should point out that I 100% expect that SF 6 performance, alongside most PS5 games, is due to the console simply not having an active and engaged audience, and that is tied why hardware and software sales are so disconnected(And SF 6 would have performed FAR better if it was on the console japanese actually play in). But that's a discussion for the week FF XVI launches, or the week after it, as that game is clearly being positioned in Japan as the determining factor of what the hell is happening there, as FF XVI is the first big PS5 exclusive that should really appeal to the japanese.

There's definitely an element of SF sales being harmed by the PlayStation ecosystem, and I do expect it to come to Switch 2 down the line. SFIV did 150,162 lifetime on 3DS, and I think a SFVI port to Switch 2 could do similar. So an okayish seller but muc smaller than what other Capcom games could do on the plartform.